Guilty of 114 charges

[whelk]

8 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

That's my understanding too. Clutching at straws I suppose. Burnham, after his remarks about not wanting the owners to sell up has now had to say that Manchester City are not above the law. Somebody needs to tell him that politics and sport don't mix.

People are keen to piss themselves at anything these days. 

[egg]

9 hours ago, saintant said:

They used this argument and it was kicked out by the Independent Panel so not sure why they're going with it again. I thought that anything in the original case could not be repeated now and they have to come up with new evidence supporting their grounds in the appeal.

Incorrect. Appeals focus on whether the original panel/court/tribunal got it wrong, not new evidence. 

[Football Special]

On 30/09/2026 at 19:57, VectisSaint said:

He was the Mayor of Manchester, probably had a lot of contact with them and their supposedly massive investments in the City. 

Absolutely right. Man City/ owners have helped considerably to the regeneration of that area so its not surprising Burnham will have got on well with them in that role , they would have bought a lot of goodwill not that it will be much use for them now 

[Football Special]

16 hours ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

 

Feels like this might be what really does for the owners, if directors had been signing off accounts knowingly understating wages and therefore tax paid on them that should be an easy target for tax authorities to go after. 

Football finances do make me laugh though, I'd still rather City's owners investing their own cash than Man Utds debt based Glazer leveraged buy out that put the debt on the football club rather than the individuals making the purchase 

 

[saintant]

I see the FA have spoken out against Man City following them being found guilty and stated they will step in where appropriate so sounds like they could well get involved.

[CSA96]

 

[Bushey Saint]

47 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

 

Was waiting for that shoe to drop.  And if that comes to pass then I'm just walking away from football.  Already sick to death of the political shenanigans at FIFA/UEFA/<insert other Federations> level, but if it comes down to one sovereign nation interfering in the domestic sporting arrangements of another?  Beep that.  As far as I'm concerned EPL, EFL and FA can all go to hell, I'll find something else to amuse me.

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, CSA96 said:

 

City fans on their forum mentioned a couple of days ago that it was only a matter of time before the UAE put pressure on the city and threaten to pull out of the UK, and here we are!!

Edited 3 hours ago by bpsaint

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, CSA96 said:

 

Posturing and bullshit. They aren't pulling out of anything that makes them stupid amounts of money.

[benjii]

Arabs do practice the withdrawal method.

[badgerx16]

City have lodged an appeal, saying they have submitted "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". If the evidence is "irrefutable", why wasn't it submitted during the hearings at which they were found guilty ?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

City have lodged an appeal, saying they have submitted "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". If the evidence is "irrefutable", why wasn't it submitted during the hearings at which they were found guilty ?

The investigation has gone on a long time. It important that the note saying "their evidence is irrefutable" is written by the current PM.

[saintant]

49 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

City have lodged an appeal, saying they have submitted "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". If the evidence is "irrefutable", why wasn't it submitted during the hearings at which they were found guilty ?

It was but the Independent Panel decided it was concocted later as a means to get off with the charges. They now hope a new panel will have a different viewpoint. My understanding is that the new panel will consist of very experienced high court judges.

[Fabrice29]

Seemingly a part of this appeal is the idea that evidence reviewed over 3 months before they actually conclude their findings is "unsafe". 

[Doctoroncall]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

Seemingly a part of this appeal is the idea that evidence reviewed over 3 months before they actually conclude their findings is "unsafe". 

Did they give reason(s) why it was unsafe?

[The Kraken]

They’ll do well to get this whole thing wrapped up by the end of the season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cqn7470513n0o

The commission was made up of three people, each with many years' experience in the legal field.  The appeal will now be heard in private by a new, three-person independent commission panel, each with a similar expert background in law.

One section of the Premier League regulations says that an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks of it being heard, and a decision communicated within 30 days of that.

Twelve weeks from Thursday – when City say they lodged the appeal – would be 24 December.  But this timeframe can also be disapplied if deemed necessary, meaning it remains uncertain how long the process will actually take.

Previous precedent suggests that sanctions against City will only be imposed after a decision on the appeal, though this is not guaranteed.  There could therefore also be a second appeal later down the line, against any sanctions imposed on the club.

So, 24 December plus 30 days takes us to late January. Then City will surely appeal whatever sanction they get. So if the whole appeal 12 weeks plus 30 days thing applies, it gets extremely close.

[LiberalCommunist]

The drag it out option has served City well. If they can kick this can down the road for long enough, it might well disappear, with the help of a rather large brown envelope on the desk of the right amount of greed person. I honestly would not be that surprised. Meanwhile, we are condemned to the pits of Mordor to break rocks for eternity. Love a bit of justice.